Suburban Discipline

Matthew Caples

Rhetorical Analysis Final Draft

3/23/13

David Bornstien's article puts the argument of treatment versus punisment for drug abuseres into perspective. He presents the pros and cons of both treatment and punishment and presents what side he takes very early on. The factual evidence that he provides mathced with his drawing on pathos makes the argument he is presenting very effective. His use of facts and emotions pair up to make his peice effective in showing that treatment is the best way to help drug abusers, not punishment. He leaves room for you to make your own desicion on the matter, but his argument is so well put that you have no other choice but to agree with his reasoning.

David first talks about the pros and cons of treating drug abusers. He throws some facts that don't make an impact until later in the peice, but talks about how 83% of treated drug abusers stay clean after treatment and don't run into to trouble with drugs and the law. He also talks about how treatment savves tax payers money because the legal system costs tax payers lots of money. However, the downfall of treatment is it costs the drug abuser money, which many cannot afford. It also requires the abuser to be dedicated to the cause or the treatment will be unsuccesful. His facts surrounding treatement for drug abuseres makes it very hard to argue for punishment before he even presents the negatives of punishment

David then talks about the pros and cons of punishment. He states that many people who are thrown into jail because of drug charges end up becoming more dependent on the drugs and often become involoved with prison gangs in order to recieve the drugs that they need. Only 34% of inmates after being released from prison end up staying sober and that percentage is dropping drastically, says Bornstein. He goes to talk about how expensive it is to keep an inmate in prison and how almost all of the costs are paid for by tax payers. He makes very good points concerning tax payers' dollars, which is a big debate going on right now in society.

The last very good point that Bornstwein makes is the effects of treatment versus punishment on abusers families. When in treatment, such as halfways houses, and detox facilities, abuseres are allowed to see their family in most cases whenever they want. Most treatment centers also provide family couseling for the abusers and their families. When the treatment is over, the families are stronger, making the abuser less likely to go back to using drugs. Unfortunatly, when punishment and jail time is involved, the effects are the exact opposite. Must drug abuseres, when sentenced, are senctenced in different counties than their families, and depending on the case, out of state. This makes it very hard for families to visit the con, which often leads to broken homes due to prison time. This makes drug abusers that are locked up more likely to start using drugs once they are out. The involvment of families and emotions into his argument really makes it hard to argue against him.

All in all, Bornsetien's argument is very sound and very effective. The way he pairs factual evidence with emotional evidence is very effective and gives no rrom for any other arguments. Before reading this article I was more on the side of punishment, even knowing the consequences of if such as gang violence. However, after reading it it became clear to me that treatment is the real cure for drug abuse.